Democratic congressman is “deeply concerned” about the legality of boat strikes after seeing the video

Jeff Bennett:

For more, we turn to Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He was among the members of Congress briefed by Admiral Bradley and General Keane today.

Thank you for being with us.

Rep. Adam Smith (Democrat, Western Australia):

Thanks for having me. Appreciate the opportunity.

Jeff Bennett:

So let’s start with what you saw in this press conference today. How would you describe the video of the US strike on that boat on September 2?

Representative Adam Smith:

Well, it’s annoying to me, because what we saw, we saw the entire video from the moment they recognized the boat to the time they made the first strike.

By the time of the second strike, you had two survivors with their shirts off on a capsized boat, the bow of the boat above the water. But there’s not much above water. They are at the head of this boat. And that was the decision to hit those two people on that boat. So it’s very annoying.

Now, the Admiral has provided an explanation for why they felt those two people on that boat were still – quote – “in the fight” at that point and legitimate targets. But I have serious questions about this conclusion. I think we need to investigate much deeper.

Jeff Bennett:

Did Admiral Bradley or General Kane say anything about the legal guidance they received from the uniformed lawyers before ordering the second strike?

Representative Adam Smith:

definitely.

There are two layers to this. One of them is specified in the second stroke. But there’s a bigger problem, and the problem with all of this is that their definition of getting back into the fight is that they consider it plausible that cocaine is still on this boat. I find that somewhat questionable as well. She went on strike. The fire was burning, and remained visibly burning for some time, before the fuel tank broke off and then overturned.

Is it possible that there is still cocaine under the underwater part of the boat? assume. But there was no evidence of this. Also, what does it mean that the cocaine was still around in terms of these two still being a threat and in a fight?

Now, the broader definition is anyone who ships cocaine toward the United States, because, keep in mind, they don’t even know that this cocaine was coming into the United States, which makes them a target of lethal force?

I mean, this is the death penalty for drug dealing. Do we want to give the President of the United States the power to kill anyone he considers a drug dealer, making him judge, jury, and executioner without due process? Are they really in a fight?

Look, I’ve worked with a lot of people who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. When they went somewhere, they were in a fight. People were shooting at them and trying to blow them up. That was a clear danger. We’re talking about two men on a capsized boat, completely unarmed, who probably still had cocaine in the boat that was sinking beneath them.

Jeff Bennett:

In your view, does what happened amount to a war crime?

Representative Adam Smith:

Personally, I wouldn’t come to that conclusion. I think it’s irresponsible to do that.

War crimes are determined through trials and thorough investigation. So I want to conduct a thorough investigation. I will say this. Based on what I saw, I am deeply concerned about the legality of the strike. I am very concerned about the legality of the whole process.

It needs further investigation into a possible war crime, of course.

Jeff Bennett:

So what guidance do you give to the men and women in uniform who are ordered to carry out such operations?

Representative Adam Smith:

Well, at the risk of the Department of Justice investigating me, and I did not serve in the military, so I am not at risk of being called back and court-martialed, I will give the same guidance that Senator Mark Kelly and the other five members gave in this video.

It is located in the UCMJ. It is your responsibility to ensure that the orders issued to you are lawful. Don’t forget that responsibility. It’s really important, especially when you have a Secretary of Defense who despises the law at every level. His position is that the law is an obstacle to him doing what he needs to do.

This is not how the United States of America is supposed to work. And if you work for this guy, you’d better be more careful, because you know that A, the Secretary of Defense doesn’t care about the law, and B, he certainly doesn’t protect you, as attested to by the fact that he immediately said, “Yes, it wasn’t my decision, it was his decision.” I fully support the order he issued.

So, it’s a very dangerous time to be a service member right now, given the way the Secretary of Defense is behaving.

Jeff Bennett:

In the remaining time, I want to shift our focus to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s report that concluded that Secretary Hegseth put US personnel at risk by sharing details of planned strikes on Houthi leaders via the unclassified messaging app Signal.

He told investigators that the messages were not confidential because they did not include names or target locations. How do you respond to this interpretation?

Representative Adam Smith:

No, first of all, this is completely wrong. This is not what happened. He said sure, that’s what we’re hitting on. That’s when we hit it. This is what hits him. This is what released him.

Look, it’s not complicated, okay? Anyone who had any interaction with classified information would immediately look at what Secretary Hegseth did here and say, yeah, wrong, he shouldn’t have done that. So it’s bad that he did that. What’s worse is that he doesn’t see anything wrong with it.

He obtained a report saying he had unnecessarily endangered service members, and was completely exonerated in its conclusion. Nothing to see here. No problem.

He won’t even fix what he did.

Jeff Bennett:

So what happens now? President Trump stands next to Hegseth. The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he is confident in Hegseth’s leadership. So what does meaningful accountability look like from your perspective?

Representative Adam Smith:

Yes. It puts us in a very difficult position.

And look, this is a problem facing the entire Trump administration in many different ways. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it very clear that the law does not apply to them. How can the United States government be used to enforce the law with a president and secretary of defense who do not believe in the law?

What we’re going to do on our end is we’re going to continue to push for Congressional oversight. The basic matter here is: What will the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate do? We want a public hearing. We want a general discussion. What is the justification for this mission? What is the justification for this particular strike on September 2?

So what I will do and what many of us in Congress will do is we will continue to push for that oversight and for that accountability.

Jeff Bennett:

Congressman Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, thanks again for your time this evening.

Representative Adam Smith:

Thanks for giving me the opportunity.

Jeff Bennett:

The News Hour has contacted Republican members of the relevant committees, and we hope that they will have a program in the near future.